A conservative case for an assault weapons ban

[Light]

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...,6774314.story
A conservative case for an assault weapons ban

Last month, I sentenced Jared Lee Loughner to seven consecutive life terms plus 140 years in federal prison for his shooting rampage in Tucson. That tragedy left six people dead, more than twice that number injured and a community shaken to its core.

Loughner deserved his punishment. But during the sentencing, I also questioned the social utility of high-capacity magazines like the one that fed his Glock. And I lamented the expiration of the federal assault weapons ban in 2004, which prohibited the manufacture and importation of certain particularly deadly guns, as well as magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition.

The ban wasn't all that stringent — if you already owned a banned gun or high-capacity magazine you could keep it, and you could sell it to someone else — but at least it was something.

And it says something that half of the nation's deadliest shootings occurred after the ban expired, including the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Conn. It also says something that it has not even been two years since Loughner's rampage, and already six mass shootings have been deadlier.

I am not a social scientist, and I know that very smart ones are divided on what to do about gun violence. But reasonable, good-faith debates have boundaries, and in the debate about guns, a high-capacity magazine has always seemed to me beyond them.

Bystanders got to Loughner and subdued him only after he emptied one 31-round magazine and was trying to load another. Adam Lanza, the Newtown shooter, chose as his primary weapon a semiautomatic rifle with 30-round magazines. And we don't even bother to call the 100-rounder that James Holmes is accused of emptying in an Aurora, Colo., movie theater a magazine — it is a drum. How is this not an argument for regulating the number of rounds a gun can fire?

I get it. Someone bent on mass murder who has only a 10-round magazine or revolvers at his disposal probably is not going to abandon his plan and instead try to talk his problems out. But we might be able to take the "mass" out of "mass shooting," or at least make the perpetrator's job a bit harder.

To guarantee that there would never be another Tucson or Sandy Hook, we would probably have to make it a capital offense to so much as look at a gun. And that would create serious 2nd Amendment, 8th Amendment and logistical problems.

So what's the alternative? Bring back the assault weapons ban, and bring it back with some teeth this time. Ban the manufacture, importation, sale, transfer and possession of both assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. Don't let people who already have them keep them. Don't let ones that have already been manufactured stay on the market. I don't care whether it's called gun control or a gun ban. I'm for it.

I say all of this as a gun owner. I say it as a conservative who was appointed to the federal bench by a Republican president. I say it as someone who prefers Fox News to MSNBC, and National Review Online to the Daily Kos. I say it as someone who thinks the Supreme Court got it right in District of Columbia vs. Heller, when it held that the 2nd Amendment gives us the right to possess guns for self-defense. (That's why I have mine.) I say it as someone who, generally speaking, is not a big fan of the regulatory state.

I even say it as someone whose feelings about the NRA mirror the left's feelings about Planned Parenthood: It has a useful advocacy function in our deliberative democracy, and much of what it does should not be controversial at all.

And I say it, finally, mindful of the arguments on the other side, at least as I understand them: that a high-capacity magazine is not that different from multiple smaller-capacity magazines; and that if we ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines one day, there's a danger we would ban guns altogether the next, and your life might depend on you having one.

But if we can't find a way to draw sensible lines with guns that balance individual rights and the public interest, we may as well call the American experiment in democracy a failure.

There is just no reason civilians need to own assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. Gun enthusiasts can still have their venison chili, shoot for sport and competition, and make a home invader flee for his life without pretending they are a part of the SEAL team that took out Osama bin Laden.

It speaks horribly of the public discourse in this country that talking about gun reform in the wake of a mass shooting is regarded as inappropriate or as politicizing the tragedy. But such a conversation is political only to those who are ideologically predisposed to see regulation of any kind as the creep of tyranny. And it is inappropriate only to those delusional enough to believe it would disrespect the victims of gun violence to do anything other than sit around and mourn their passing. Mourning is important, but so is decisive action.

Congress must reinstate and toughen the ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.

Larry Alan Burns is a federal district judge in San Diego.

[Originalist]

Well, he is wrong. And ban or no ban, we will not surrender to unconstitutional edicts.

By Neal Boortz

Stepping in from my retirement rehearsal to get a few words in about the Democrats and the push for gun control. So .. let’s make a few points:

1. Everyone with an IQ higher than a thermostat setting knew sooner or later that Obama was going to go after the 2nd Amendment with a push for more gun control. That’s why gun sales are at an all-time high right now. Democrats absolutely hate the idea that a private individual American can own a gun for the purpose of self defense. They really hate the idea that one of the primary reasons our founding fathers included the 2nd Amendment in our Constitution was a recognition of the fact that a free people always should have the means to defend themselves from a despotic government. Democrats are the embodiment of a despotic government. It is perfectly natural or them to fear an armed citizenry.

2. Democrats find it much easier to push a gun control agenda than they do to deal with issues of true and vital importance to our Republic. When we are mourning and burying 20 young children the emotions of the people are raw. It’s time to exploit those emotions for political gain. Americans, unfortunately, will never be this emotional about the fiscal disaster they face. And I’m not talking about this meaningless “fiscal cliff.” I’m talking about our nearly $1 trillion … that’s TRILLION … in unfunded liabilities and our current unsustainable level of spending. The highest in terms of our gross domestic product ever. But you’ve read all about this in the mainstream media, haven’t you? Oh, you haven’t? Well, I’m sure they’re preparing their in-depth stories right now.

3. This year 446 school age children have been shot in Chicago, and 62 have died. There has been NO push from the left for gun control resulting from the carnage in Chicago. Odd, don’t you think? By the way, Chicago has some of the most stringent gun control laws in the country. I’m sure you’ve seen these statistics on your favorite network television newscast, haven’t you? Wait! What?

4. The media will NEVER go to any great lengths to report on the use of privately owned firearms in self-defense. This is not part of the leftist agenda. There was a shooting in a mall in Portland, Oregon a few weeks ago that was reportedly halted by a private citizen with a concealed carry permit and a weapon. When the shooter saw the weapon he promptly shot himself. You didn’t hear that on your mainstream newscast, did you?

5. During a spate of school shootings in the late 1990s no less than three of those school shootings were halted by a civilian with a gun. One shooting was stopped after two students had already died by an assistant principal who had to run a quarter-mile to his car and back to get his gun. He couldn’t park his car on school property because there was a gun in it. Would someone be alive today who is dead and buried if that assistant principal hadn’t had to make his little half-mile run? You haven’t heard about those incidents in the mainstream newscasts, have you?

6. In the past week we have had two stories about a 14-year-old at home without an adult when a burglar entered the home. In one the 14-year-old knew where his dad’s gun was, and knew how to use it. The intruder was shot. In the other the 14-year-old had no means to defend himself. His father found his body when he came home from work at the end of the day. He had been shot. Have you read a juxtaposition of these two stories in your mainstream newscast? Didn’t think so.

7. Obama says he will introduce legislation to close “The Gun Show Loophole.” There IS NO gun show loophole. The federal laws pertaining to purchasing a firearm at a gun show are exactly the same at a gun show as they are anywhere else in this country. When a private individual sells a firearm to another private individual there is no requirement for a background check. When a licensed firearms dealer sells a gun to an individual a background check must be performed before the weapon is transferred. When a private individual at a gun show sells a firearm to another private individual there is no requirement for a background check. When a licensed firearms dealer at a gun show sells a gun to an individual a background check must be performed before the weapon is transferred. The operation of law is EXACTLY the same at a gun show as it is anywhere else. Therefore, as I said, there is no “gun show loophole.” Now I’m thinking that you haven’t heard this from your mainstream media outlet, have you?

8. The true purpose behind this “close the gun show loophole” idea is to make the sale and transfer of firearms between individuals impossible by requiring a private individual to conduct a background check before selling a privately owned gun to another individual. Private individuals do not have the legal authority to access the information necessary to perform the background check. This would mean that Americans could only obtain a firearm through a federally licensed firearms dealer. Consider the consequences. Has this angle been covered in the mainstream media? Uhhhhhh ….. no.

9. In response to the Sandy Hook shootings Obama will introduce legislation calling for more extensive background checks. A more extensive background check would have done nothing to prevent the deaths of these 26 people. The shooter underwent NO background check at all. That’s because he did not purchase the guns. His mother did. By all accounts his mother could have passed any conceivable background check. You’ve already seen this covered in the mainstream media, haven’t you? You haven’t? Golly! I’m just soooo surprised.

10. Obama wants an assault weapons ban. We had one of those and there is not one bit of empirical evidence that the ban saved one single life. Some weapons are designated as “assault weapons” simply because they look like they should be carried by a soldier, even though they are less powerful than your average hunting rifle. Can you tell me why putting a hole in the stock of a gun for your thumb, or making the stock out of grey plastic, should make it illegal?

The problem we face in this gun control debate bears so many similarities to the problems we face in much of our national political discourse. The media has chosen sides, and haven chosen sides, contrarian information will be blocked and the public will not have the details necessary to make informed choices.

[Pliny]

The whole "assault ban" is smoke and mirrors and only the ignorant buy into it. When seconds count the police are only minutes away. I want the right to defend myself against a single invader or multiple invaders. Self defense is the most basic of human rights.

The benevolent government quickly turns tyrannical when given absolute authority. Ask anyone who has had to deal with the IRS.

[Cindy]

The fear I think a lot of Americans have if they lose their guns, the mass murderers will be government sanctioned.

[HRea]

Guns don't kill people. Evil people use whatever they can get their hands on to murder people. The problem isn't the gun, it's the evil people.

Remember the book of Esther and the reason for the feast of Purim? Anybody? God brought deliverance to the Jews by allowing them to defend themselves against evil people.

Shootings Group #1: The Virginia Tech, Aurora Movie Theater, and Sandy Hook Elementary mass killings have 2 things in common: evil people determined to kill, and no one to defend the intended victims. The results were a massive number dead, an even larger number wounded, panic, fear, and wide spread media sensationalism.

Shootings Group #2: The Clackamas Mall, St. Vincent's Hospital, San Antonio Movie Theater, and Palm Internet Cafe also have 2 things in common: evil people determine to kill, and someone to defend the intended victims. The results were a very small number dead, few wounded, expressions of relief and thankfulness that someone was there, and no where near the level of news coverage.

The assault weapons ban does not address the fundamental, common denominator seen in the book of Esther, Shooting Group #1, and Shooting Group #2: what to do about the bad guy. If they won't do anything to stop the bad guy, defending the intended victims has proven very effective.

Or maybe we should have a ban on mass shootings and make murder illegal?

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Originalist

Well, he is wrong. And ban or no ban, we will not surrender to unconstitutional edicts.

By Neal Boortz

Stepping in from my retirement rehearsal to get a few words in about the Democrats and the push for gun control. So .. let’s make a few points:

1. Everyone with an IQ higher than a thermostat setting knew sooner or later that Obama was going to go after the 2nd Amendment with a push for more gun control. That’s why gun sales are at an all-time high right now. Democrats absolutely hate the idea that a private individual American can own a gun for the purpose of self defense. They really hate the idea that one of the primary reasons our founding fathers included the 2nd Amendment in our Constitution was a recognition of the fact that a free people always should have the means to defend themselves from a despotic government. Democrats are the embodiment of a despotic government. It is perfectly natural or them to fear an armed citizenry.

2. Democrats find it much easier to push a gun control agenda than they do to deal with issues of true and vital importance to our Republic. When we are mourning and burying 20 young children the emotions of the people are raw. It’s time to exploit those emotions for political gain. Americans, unfortunately, will never be this emotional about the fiscal disaster they face. And I’m not talking about this meaningless “fiscal cliff.” I’m talking about our nearly $1 trillion … that’s TRILLION … in unfunded liabilities and our current unsustainable level of spending. The highest in terms of our gross domestic product ever. But you’ve read all about this in the mainstream media, haven’t you? Oh, you haven’t? Well, I’m sure they’re preparing their in-depth stories right now.

3. This year 446 school age children have been shot in Chicago, and 62 have died. There has been NO push from the left for gun control resulting from the carnage in Chicago. Odd, don’t you think? By the way, Chicago has some of the most stringent gun control laws in the country. I’m sure you’ve seen these statistics on your favorite network television newscast, haven’t you? Wait! What?

4. The media will NEVER go to any great lengths to report on the use of privately owned firearms in self-defense. This is not part of the leftist agenda. There was a shooting in a mall in Portland, Oregon a few weeks ago that was reportedly halted by a private citizen with a concealed carry permit and a weapon. When the shooter saw the weapon he promptly shot himself. You didn’t hear that on your mainstream newscast, did you?

5. During a spate of school shootings in the late 1990s no less than three of those school shootings were halted by a civilian with a gun. One shooting was stopped after two students had already died by an assistant principal who had to run a quarter-mile to his car and back to get his gun. He couldn’t park his car on school property because there was a gun in it. Would someone be alive today who is dead and buried if that assistant principal hadn’t had to make his little half-mile run? You haven’t heard about those incidents in the mainstream newscasts, have you?

6. In the past week we have had two stories about a 14-year-old at home without an adult when a burglar entered the home. In one the 14-year-old knew where his dad’s gun was, and knew how to use it. The intruder was shot. In the other the 14-year-old had no means to defend himself. His father found his body when he came home from work at the end of the day. He had been shot. Have you read a juxtaposition of these two stories in your mainstream newscast? Didn’t think so.

7. Obama says he will introduce legislation to close “The Gun Show Loophole.” There IS NO gun show loophole. The federal laws pertaining to purchasing a firearm at a gun show are exactly the same at a gun show as they are anywhere else in this country. When a private individual sells a firearm to another private individual there is no requirement for a background check. When a licensed firearms dealer sells a gun to an individual a background check must be performed before the weapon is transferred. When a private individual at a gun show sells a firearm to another private individual there is no requirement for a background check. When a licensed firearms dealer at a gun show sells a gun to an individual a background check must be performed before the weapon is transferred. The operation of law is EXACTLY the same at a gun show as it is anywhere else. Therefore, as I said, there is no “gun show loophole.” Now I’m thinking that you haven’t heard this from your mainstream media outlet, have you?

8. The true purpose behind this “close the gun show loophole” idea is to make the sale and transfer of firearms between individuals impossible by requiring a private individual to conduct a background check before selling a privately owned gun to another individual. Private individuals do not have the legal authority to access the information necessary to perform the background check. This would mean that Americans could only obtain a firearm through a federally licensed firearms dealer. Consider the consequences. Has this angle been covered in the mainstream media? Uhhhhhh ….. no.

9. In response to the Sandy Hook shootings Obama will introduce legislation calling for more extensive background checks. A more extensive background check would have done nothing to prevent the deaths of these 26 people. The shooter underwent NO background check at all. That’s because he did not purchase the guns. His mother did. By all accounts his mother could have passed any conceivable background check. You’ve already seen this covered in the mainstream media, haven’t you? You haven’t? Golly! I’m just soooo surprised.

10. Obama wants an assault weapons ban. We had one of those and there is not one bit of empirical evidence that the ban saved one single life. Some weapons are designated as “assault weapons” simply because they look like they should be carried by a soldier, even though they are less powerful than your average hunting rifle. Can you tell me why putting a hole in the stock of a gun for your thumb, or making the stock out of grey plastic, should make it illegal?

The problem we face in this gun control debate bears so many similarities to the problems we face in much of our national political discourse. The media has chosen sides, and haven chosen sides, contrarian information will be blocked and the public will not have the details necessary to make informed choices.

We are a culture of death and it started with abortion.

[scotty]

Lets see if we can address this garbage than an apparent ignorant judge has written.

Originally Posted by Light

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...,6774314.story
A conservative case for an assault weapons ban

Assault weapons are already illegal in the U.S.


Loughner deserved his punishment. But during the sentencing, I also questioned the social utility of high-capacity magazines like the one that fed his Glock. And I lamented the expiration of the federal assault weapons ban in 2004, which prohibited the manufacture and importation of certain particularly deadly guns, as well as magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition.

We have no problem banning high-capacity magazines.

And it says something that half of the nation's deadliest shootings occurred after the ban expired, including the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Conn. It also says something that it has not even been two years since Loughner's rampage, and already six mass shootings have been deadlier.

It only says that these shootings increased. Nothing to do with when the ban ended. All crimes have increased through out history.

I am not a social scientist, and I know that very smart ones are divided on what to do about gun violence. But reasonable, good-faith debates have boundaries, and in the debate about guns, a high-capacity magazine has always seemed to me beyond them.

Agreed.

Bystanders got to Loughner and subdued him only after he emptied one 31-round magazine and was trying to load another. Adam Lanza, the Newtown shooter, chose as his primary weapon a semiautomatic rifle with 30-round magazines.

Really? Where did he get this information? I have not seen it released that Lanza was using a high-capacity clip. I may be wrong.

And we don't even bother to call the 100-rounder that James Holmes is accused of emptying in an Aurora, Colo., movie theater a magazine — it is a drum.

Wrong. Holmes never emptied the magazine. It jammed, which is why he retreated to the parking lot. Which is why we have no problem banning high-capacity magazines, because they are useless.

I get it. Someone bent on mass murder who has only a 10-round magazine or revolvers at his disposal probably is not going to abandon his plan and instead try to talk his problems out. But we might be able to take the "mass" out of "mass shooting," or at least make the perpetrator's job a bit harder.

To guarantee that there would never be another Tucson or Sandy Hook, we would probably have to make it a capital offense to so much as look at a gun. And that would create serious 2nd Amendment, 8th Amendment and logistical problems.

Maybe he's not so stupid. Lets keep reading.

So what's the alternative? Bring back the assault weapons ban, and bring it back with some teeth this time. Ban the manufacture, importation, sale, transfer and possession of both assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. Don't let people who already have them keep them. Don't let ones that have already been manufactured stay on the market. I don't care whether it's called gun control or a gun ban. I'm for it.

Nope, right back to stupid. Assault weapons are already illegal in the U.S.

I say all of this as a gun owner. I say it as a conservative who was appointed to the federal bench by a Republican president. I say it as someone who prefers Fox News to MSNBC, and National Review Online to the Daily Kos. I say it as someone who thinks the Supreme Court got it right in District of Columbia vs. Heller, when it held that the 2nd Amendment gives us the right to possess guns for self-defense. (That's why I have mine.) I say it as someone who, generally speaking, is not a big fan of the regulatory state.

If he is a gun owner then he probably already owns a weapon equivalent to what liberals are labeling "assault weapons".

I even say it as someone whose feelings about the NRA mirror the left's feelings about Planned Parenthood: It has a useful advocacy function in our deliberative democracy, and much of what it does should not be controversial at all.

And I say it, finally, mindful of the arguments on the other side, at least as I understand them: that a high-capacity magazine is not that different from multiple smaller-capacity magazines; and that if we ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines one day, there's a danger we would ban guns altogether the next, and your life might depend on you having one.

But if we can't find a way to draw sensible lines with guns that balance individual rights and the public interest, we may as well call the American experiment in democracy a failure.

Really? Think its that bad huh? (cues roll your eyes smiley)

There is just no reason civilians need to own assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. Gun enthusiasts can still have their venison chili, shoot for sport and competition, and make a home invader flee for his life without pretending they are a part of the SEAL team that took out Osama bin Laden.

No civilian currently owns an assault weapon, legally.

Then address the pretenders.

It speaks horribly of the public discourse in this country that talking about gun reform in the wake of a mass shooting is regarded as inappropriate or as politicizing the tragedy. But such a conversation is political only to those who are ideologically predisposed to see regulation of any kind as the creep of tyranny. And it is inappropriate only to those delusional enough to believe it would disrespect the victims of gun violence to do anything other than sit around and mourn their passing. Mourning is important, but so is decisive action.

Congress must reinstate and toughen the ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.

Larry Alan Burns is a federal district judge in San Diego.

Guess I need to put this post on quick paste, but here it is again for the uneducated.

The AR-15 is not an "assault weapon" Your post keep repeating the terms "automatic assault weapons", "semi-automatic assault weapons", and "assault weapons" in general.

Let me clear up some definitions here so we can have a productive conversation going forward.

The liberal left has instituted the term "assault weapon" to label any weapon that resembles in appearance that of a military issue weapon. In this case the AR-15.

The true definition of an "assault weapon" is a weapon capable of "killing en mass". Weapons that are classified as "assault weapons" are fully automatic. This meaning that when one pulls and holds the trigger, the weapon will fire continuously until the trigger is released or the ammunition is depleted. Machine guns are a good example; however, M-16's and M-14's(which is what the AR-15 was designed after) also have the capability to fire in fully automatic mode.

A semi-automatic weapon will fire one round when the trigger is pulled, then the user must release the trigger and pull it again to fire another round. These are not considered "assault weapons".

Now, "assault weapons" as defined above are illegal. It is against the law to own an "assault weapon" in the United States without special pemits. These permits are not easy to come by, most dealers and even collectors can not obtain one and most who do still are required to have the "fully automatic" feature disabled.

So, what are we really dealing with here. Well lets use the weapon used by the Newtown shooter as an example. In this case it was the AR-15. The AR-15 is a clip fed, semi-automatic weapon that shoots a .223 calibur round. It "looks" like a military style M-14. Now, you can go into any Wal-Mart and purchase a Browning, Remington, Winchester, etc. deer rifle that is clip fed, semi-automatic weapon that also shoots a .223 round. Essentially there is no difference in the two types of weapons. Yet these are not called "assault weapons".

So what has happened is the liberal left has labeled weapons such as the AR-15 as "assault weapons" when essentially they are not, and in reality they are no different from any deer rifle. So to ban a weapon because of the way it "looks" is kind of ignorant wouldn't you say?

Now there is the attack on high capacity clips. This is enables a shooter to load a clip with up to 30 rounds at one time instead of the standard 8 -10 rounds. Any responsible gun owner will not have a problem with banning high capacity clips as they are essentially useless. A prime example is the Aurua theater shooting. He had a high capacity clip but half way through it the weapon jammed and he was forced to retreat to the parking lot where he was captured. Most weapons can not handle having that many rounds fired through it without a pause for internal components to cool down. Making these clips essentially useless.

Hopefully all will see that this attack on gun ownership is being driven by those who wish to label a weapon as an "assault weapon" based on nothing more than ignorance and what it looks like.

[Pliny]

Saw this and thought it interesting.

"... it appears that civilians armed with guns are sometimes willing to intervene to stop someone who had just committed a mass shooting in public. In what fraction of mass shootings would such interventions happen, if gun possession were allowed in the places where the shootings happen? We don’t know. In what fraction would interventions prevent more killings and injuries, as opposed to capturing or killing the murderer after he’s already done? We don’t know. In what fraction would interventions lead to more injuries to bystanders? Again, we don’t know. Finally, always keep in mind that mass shootings in public places should not be the main focus in the gun debate, whether for gun control or gun decontrol: They on average account for much less than 1% of all homicides in the U.S., and are unusually hard to stop through gun control laws (since the killer is bent on committing a publicly visible murder and is thus unlikely to be much deterred by gun control law, or by the prospect of encountering an armed bystander).

Still, people have asked for examples of some shootings in which a civilian armed with a gun intervened and brought down the shooter — so here they are."

http://www.volokh.com/2012/12/14/do-...mass-shooters/

[Pressing-On]

December 18, 2012
Thomas Sowell
Gun-Control Ignorance
How many times do the same arguments need to be refuted?

The key fallacy of so-called gun-control laws is that such laws do not in fact control guns. They simply disarm law-abiding citizens, while people bent on violence find firearms readily available.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...-thomas-sowell

[Michael The Disciple]

All it is is the chance to ban hi capacity magazines. NOTHING ELSE matters on this issue. A pistol grip or folding stock adds nothing at all to a weapons destructive potential. They want hi cap mags because they know thats the only way the civilian militia has hope of defeating the Islamic/Socialist government they have planned.

I was just reading a chart on Glenn Becks site showing as many people are killed with hands, fists, and feet per year than with shotguns and rifles combined in the United States Of Amerika.